Scott Mills sacked

[Ihateboris]

Link here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckge1yn50y8o
Very happy as I can't stand him

But that would mean the BBC has instantly decided any new allegation must be true. Which would be very kneejerk considering the police and CPS investigation decided the old ones didn't warrant pursuing. Unless the BBC has seen a copy of CPS decision in full, how can they be sure the claims weren't dismissed at the time for being false?

My source at the BBC only knows or can only say so much. But I suppose the new DG has to make a point.

The incidents relate to the late 1990s. The police investigation started in 2016 - and concluded in 2019 - is my understanding. SM interviewed under caution (but not arrested) in 2018.

Yeah. That gives it a much darker tone. Eurgh !!!!

"Ooh did I say something naughty"? Urgh no thanks 🤦‍♂️😩

Yes, but she would be constantly farting between tunes.

All I can think is that the BBC has learned the person who made the complaint came into contact with Mills on BBC premises while being under the age of consent - i.e. was doing work experience or was a competition winner or something. So even though no criminal proceedings took place, it might still count as workplace misconduct and bringing the BBC into disrepute under a contract "bad behaviour" clause.

However, even that's still an iffy reason to sack someone when it happened nearly 30 years ago. Would love to hear an employment lawyer's take on that.

Obviously we don't know anything at this stage. But the BBC is contact with the complainant and its clearly a serious matter.

I am thinking there will be a statement from SM by the end of the week.

My immediate assumption was that the 'teenage boy' involved has resurfaced. The CPS could have concluded in 2018 that there was insufficient evidence, leaving the victim feeling frustrated and angry. In that situation it would be very hard to watch your (alleged) abuser climb the ranks in a very high profile and well paid career and perhaps he reached the point where he was willing to get 'justice' without going through a creaking legal system that has challenging limitations around prosecution/conviction for sexual offences. After all the other failings, the BBC couldn't afford to be seen to turn a blind eye again.

I'm being careful how I phrase this to leave room for doubt on both sides.

In 1997? What was he doing at that time at the BBC, I dont even remember him!

Or SM has admitted it. That is my take.

Im not quite clear on the process here, I thought if you were interviewed under caution its akin to accepting a caution, so it wouldnt go to the CPS

If he wasnt arrested, he surely cant have been charged which means that nothing could have gone to the CPS?

Im not a police officer so not sure on the process though! We do work with the police a lot though.

He started the graveyard slot at r1 in 1998 ....

Im starting to have visions of perfectly innocent people walking through the doors of the BBC over the past 30 years or so, and literally being leapt on by sexual predators springing out of cupboards right left and centre before the poor people have even got 5 yards inside the bloody building. 🙄

I never really know what I think about complainants being in contact with the BBC or ITV or Channel 4 about one of their employees

Does that happen in any other circumstance? If someone made an allegation about me would my employer be 'in contact with the complainent'? (if it were about a private relationship rather than my job per se)

Blimey I had no idea

He certainly looks very young.

The process is - interview under caution (or arrest if person refuses to come in). In order to decide to charge with an offence the police submit a file to the CPS.

The CPS make the decision whether to charge based on strength of evidence as well as some other considerations.

SM was not charged in relation to this investigation - nor was he ever arrested. He did live with the cloud of wondering if the CPS would press charges for nearly a year which mist have been ... a lot.

BBC News - Police say teenage boy at centre of Scott Mills sexual offences investigation was under 16
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwykq2lqjw7o

Breaking news Boy in question was under 16 😞

Whoah! Well I hope he does get charged and prosecuted for this.

Ah, so someone said upthread that the CPS threw it out and 'didnt prosecute'

So its even more pertinent that the CPS didnt agree charges should be brought let alone the next stage.

I see.

I dont know, I know nothing of this bloke but it doesnt seem to sit right. Perhaps it was a horrendous allegation and an allegation of very violent rape or something though.

How would that happen?

Yet another BBC paedophile

The CPS don't "throw things out" - they may decline to prosecute for lack of evidence. Yes - that happened in this case. One of those things may be that the complainant changed their mind about giving evidence. In sexual offences (particularly historic as these were in 2018/19) often the only evidence will be the account of the victim. That victim may well have changed his mind now.

I didnt use my own term 'throw it out' I was using the previous posters terminology. I know they dont 'throw things out'.

Yes the alleged victim often doesnt want to follow through with statements, but then saying that, the decision about that took a couple of years by all accounts.